Director of Public Prosecutions v Glinski
[2023] VCC 1256
•20 June 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
General List
Case No. CR-21-00754
CR-23-00608
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CHRISTOPHER GLINSKI |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEMPSEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 15 June 2023 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 June 2023 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Glinski | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1256 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.
Catchwords: Aggravated burglary and causing injury recklessly. Plea following sentencing indication. Family violence. Relevant criminal history. Psychotic episode in custody. Now treated and complaint with medication. Significant period of remand prior to sentence. Totality with other sentences. Plea of guilty during pandemic. Suitability for CCO post release.
TES – combination sentence of 20 months followed by a 2-year CCO with conditions.
PSD 529 days.
Section 6AAA declaration: 4 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 3 years 2 months.
Breach of CCO almost immediately by way of minor offending, noncompliance and then further, serious offending. Penalty imposed on breach of CCO offence itself. CCO cancelled and offender resentenced on original charges.
Fresh offending of attempted aggravated burglary, common assault, resist emergency worker on duty, and state false name. Serious offending. Serious impact on vulnerable victim. Determined efforts to avoid arrest, proper identification and consequences of offending. Very early plea of guilty. Diminished prospects for reform. Increased need for community protection. Totality.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991.
Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Boulton v The Queen (2014) VR 308; Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 9; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Nolch v The Queen [2020] VSCA 195; Berry v The Queen [2019] VSCA 291; Hogarth v The Queen (2012) 37 VR 658; Lecornu v The Queen (2012) 36 VR 382; DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; Luu v The Queen [2018] VSCA 92.
Sentence: TES (for original offending and new offending) 5 years with non-parole period of 3 years 6 months.
PSD 778 days.
Section 6AAA declaration on new offending alone: 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Paganis | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N Sood | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
INTRODUCTION
1Mr Glinski in October 2020 you committed the offences of aggravated burglary and recklessly causing injury. These were committed against your former partner Faye Anderson[1] and her new partner Josh Bridges[2] (the A/B offending – or the 2020 offending).
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]A pseudonym.
2In August 2022 you pleaded guilty to those charges before me. I sentenced you to a combination sentence involving 20 months' imprisonment, followed by an onerous and lengthy community corrections order (CCO) for two years. You had already served by that point 520 days or close to 18 months in custody by way of pre-sentence detention (PSD).
3Upon release from prison, you breached the CCO almost immediately first by minor offending, then by noncompliance with conditions and then finally by committing serious offences against the person (the CCO breach).
4That serious re-offending is constituted by an attempted aggravated burglary and the common assault against a single mother in her home, Ms Cecilia Walters[3] (the Walters offending – or the 2022 offending), resist emergency worker on duty and state false name all occurring in December 2022. You have been in custody since then.
[3]A pseudonym.
5I am now called upon to sentence you for the discrete offence of contravention of the CCO I imposed in August 2022, re-sentence you on those original charges and also sentence you for the fresh offending.
6The total effective sentence I impose will have a substantial head sentence and non-parole period.
7For ease of reference my reasons for sentence will be expressed in the following order:
(a) First, I will deal with matters personal to you;
(b) Second, I will deal with the August 2022 offending;
(c) Third, I will cover your progress of lack thereof on the CCO;
(d) Fourth, I will deal with the fresh offending;
(e) Fifth, I will turn to matters of sentencing principle; and finally
(f) Sixth, I will detail the actual sentence that I impose.
MATTERS PERSONAL TO YOU
Background
8You are now 37 years of age, having been born in March of 1986.
9You are the youngest of three, having an older brother and an older sister.
10Your parents separated when you were around 11. Your father is in his 60s and works as a mechanic and landscaper. Your mother who is also in her 60s is retired from her role in a nursing home. Your mother remarried, I am told, in about 2019.
11Your family is unfamiliar with the criminal justice system and are supportive of you. I am told that you have reconnected with family members more recently in a way that is encouraging. You lived with your mother until 2003 when you commenced a relationship with the complainant in the first matter I am dealing with, Ms Anderson.
12You completed Year 10 at Secondary School. You have never acquired any formal qualifications but have worked doing labouring jobs since leaving school. You attempted an apprenticeship with Reece Plumbing at the relatively advanced age, for an apprentice at least, of 23 years of age. You then worked at a company Flexiglass and most recently prior to your remand back in 2020 you worked with one of the witnesses in the 2020 offending. You estimate that you have been employed for about three or four years out of the last 20.
13You have only ever had two long term intimate relationships. One was with Jade, which was on again off again for about seven years. She died of a heart attack about three years ago. Your only other partner was the victim in the 2020 matter, Ms Anderson.
14You have struggled with permanent accommodation over the years, and you move between friends' houses including previously the residence of the complainant in the 2020 matter, Ms Anderson. This is a theme that reoccurs during your life and is said to be the catalyst for the breach of CCO and the subsequent offending.
15You have had an ongoing and chronic drug problem for many years, especially ice since you were in your 20s. Other than a detoxification program of two weeks in your youth you have never really participated in a residential rehabilitation program. You arranged yourself an assessment with the Eastern Bridge program.[4]
[4]Exhibit 2 on the original plea for CR-21-00754.
16I was informed during the plea back in 2022 that you were suitable for such a placement but needed to be reassessed for same upon your release from custody or prior to it. I was informed and I accept that this is one of the very few proactive steps you have ever made towards your own reform. Further, the very distinct impression was given on your plea then, that you were suitable to return there upon your release from custody and that certainty as to the date of your release that a combination sentence provides would very much assist you in attending there. This turned out not to be the case.
Prior history
17You have an unenviable prior criminal history. At 37 years of age, you have accumulated a high number of prior convictions, including for:
(a) Committing offences on bail;
(b) Theft related offences (17 times);
(c) Breach of family violence intervention order;
(d) Intentionally causing injury;
(e) Damage property (8 charges);
(f) Unlawful assault (2 charges);
(g) Fail to answer bail (4 charges);
(h) Throw missile to injure or danger;
(i) Recklessly causing injury (3 charges);
(j) Burglary; and
(k) Aggravated burglary.
18You have received multiple terms of imprisonment, as well as being afforded the opportunity of a number of community-based dispositions and a suspended sentence which you breached.
19At a time proximate to the August 2020 offending, you committed further offences which were finalised, including:[5]
(a) Threats to inflict serious injury (two charges).
(b) Unlawful assault.
(c) Theft (2 charges).
(d) Make threats to kill.
[5]Summaries appear as Exhibit D on original plea CR-21-00754.
20Your more recent history is troubling:
(a) On August 2017, at Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court, you were dealt with for criminal damage, fail to appear, theft, assault, discharge missile and recklessly causing injury. You were sentenced to two months and a 15 month CCO. You breached that.
(b) On 13 February 2018, at Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court, you were convicted and sentenced to 18 months with a non-parole period of nine months for breaching that very CCO I just mentioned, as well as charges of breach intervention order, intentionally causing injury, criminal damage and assault.
21You appealed that sentence but abandoned the appeal in May of 2018.
22You were finally admitted to parole in November of 2018, that parole ending in August of 2019. Within six months, by February 2020 you had offended against Ms Anderson.
23Then having spent close to two years in prison you were released on a CCO (with conditions of the very kind you urged the Court to impose) on 23 February 2022.
24Within a week of being released on the CCO you offended by stealing alcohol on 2 October 2022. You otherwise effectively discharged none of your obligations on the CCO other than attend for induction and initial assessments for programmes and conditions. Worse than that, within three months of being released on the CCO late in 2022, you offended again, this time against Ms Walters, that was in December 2022.
Mental health
25I will turn now to an important aspect of your life — namely your mental health.
26While on remand for the A/B offences in December 2020 or thereabouts, you presented with serious behavioural difficulties for prison staff. Your mental health remained effectively unchecked by authorities.
27You were assessed by a Psychiatrist, Dr Deacon in both July and August 2021 and again in January 2022, with specific instructions and recommendations made to the prison authorities to look much more closely at your mental health.
28It is clear from the sentence or remand report, the authorities investigated and acted upon the assessment made by Dr Deacon.
29A formal diagnosis of Schizophrenia was not made but was suggested. Consequently, at that time you were prescribed the anti-psychotic Olanzapine.
30Until the provision of the extremely helpful report written by Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Nicholas Owens dated 20 July 2022,[6] what exactly was awry with your mental health remained in that concerning state of uncertainty.
[6]Exhibit 4 on original plea CR-21-00754.
31Due to your unstable mental health several case conferences were adjourned and ultimately the matter had to be placed back in the general list prior to resolution. You maintained a treatment regime set up for you in the MAP since late 2021. During periods of stability, you were actually able to complete programs in custody, as evidenced by the tendering of a large number of certificates I received on the plea.[7] I viewed this then as particularly encouraging. It was one of the reasons I acquiesced to your Counsel's submissions that you be released under the auspices of a CCO rather than parole.
[7]Exhibit 2 on original plea CR-21-00754 – involving alcohol use, ice use and vocational courses.
32The report of Dr Owens is so clearly expressed and is directed to real matters of sentencing principle that I think it is worthwhile lifting his concluding remarks verbatim, as I did in the original sentence. I will start at paragraph 80 and read it into the public record.
[80]Mr Glinski is a 36-year-old man who is currently on remand for violent and other offences and is due to attend a hearing at the Melbourne County Court for a sentencing indication. He has a lengthy past history of incarcerations and community sentences for violent, acquisitive, drug-related and other offending, dating back to his late teens.
[81]I think the most likely diagnosis is a drug-induced psychosis. Although the picture is somewhat clouded by Mr Glinski's denial of symptoms shortly following his initial florid presentation to a private psychiatrist who was assessing him for a previous report, as well as some inconsistency in his reports of the duration of symptoms it seems that the balance of opinion of treating psychiatrists in that prison is that he did have a psychotic episode of some kind and that treatment with antipsychotics was warranted. I note that he has found treatment to be well-tolerated and since being on treatment there has been no further evidence of psychosis. I also note in the Justice Health records there is a note of him talking to himself in his cell approximately six weeks after reception. Although at this stage he was seeking mental health treatment for anxiety.
[82]Prior to his reception he was using very large quantities of methamphetamine daily. He has a long history of stimulant use and meets the criteria for stimulant use disorder. He would also meet the criteria for opiate use disorder.
[83]There is also a lengthy history of anxiety which has never really received any treatment apart from long-term benzodiazepine prescription by a GP and antidepressant treatment in custody. I am unable to give an exact diagnosis in relation to this anxiety, it may be an underlying social anxiety disorder or it may be that he becomes anxious secondary to paranoia or sensitive ideas of reference in public places, perhaps an artefact of multiple periods of time in prison. It would seem likely his anxiety had been perpetuated by psychological dependent on stimulants. He would benefit from psychological treatment for this condition.
[84]Mr Glinski is currently quite stable in his mental health and I would expect this continue to be the case so long as he continues to take his antipsychotic medication. The usual advice is that following the onset of a first episode of psychosis, medication should continue for at least two years before ceasing it. If Mr Glinski decides to stop the medication prematurely he will be at a higher risk of relapse of psychosis. I do not consider Mr Glinski's case that his incarceration is in and of itself elevates this risk.
[85]I don't think that his psychotic disorder will make his term of imprisonment more onerous for him. He is receiving appropriate treatment and his condition is well-controlled. There is no evidence, since he has been placed on treatment, that his mental health has been causing any problems in his day-to-day functioning. He is well-engaged with mental health services and remains willing to continue this engagement, even if he is of the view that ongoing treatment is not necessarily required.
[86]The offending appears to have occurred in the context of intoxication with stimulants as well as alcohol. I cannot make any comment on whether or not there is a connection between drug induced psychosis and the offending because he was not keen on discussing the facts of the matter, other than to say he agreed with them and was pleading guilty Use of stimulants and alcohol was likely to have caused some degree of disinhibition of behaviour as well as increased drive and aggression.[8]
[8]Exhibit 4 (on original plea): Psychiatric Report of Dr Nicholas Owens dated 20 July 2022, 9–10 [80]–[86].
33Prior to the receipt of that report, the Crown very sensibly did not concede that any of the principles outlined in R v Verdins[9] applied in your circumstances. Given the contents of the above report, the position did not change (nor has it changed still).
[9](2007) 16 VR 269 (‘Verdins’).
34I was left to conclude as I must, that the A/B family violence occurred in the context of mental instability probably caused by rampant drug use.
35In a more recent report, Mr Warren Simmons[10] does not advance the position much further in terms of the application of Verdins, although he very sensibly suggests that your mental health be further investigated to assist in planning interventions and treatment for you.
[10]Exhibit 2: Report of Warren Simmons dated 7 May 2023.
36I am prepared to accept (and I note that the Crown are too) that,
(a) you have specific needs when it comes to drug and alcohol use and that in some way shapes the sentence I give you; and
(b) although medicated, you require ongoing medication and treatment for your mental health, which is self-evident.
THE 2020 A/B OFFENDING
Background
37By way of background, those charges relate to an incident at Ms Anderson's residence on 9 February 2020. You were as I said, once in a relationship with her which was on again off again her your teenage years. You have an 18 year old daughter. Ms Anderson was in a relationship with Mr Bridges at the time. Ms Anderson acknowledged writing to you when you were in custody telling you that Mr Bridges had mistreated her.[11] There was some further support for that proposition in evidence given at the committal. This belief that Mr Bridges was mistreating your former partner is said to essentially be the catalyst for that offending. That offending is, as follows.
[11]Depositions 25.27 and 26.10 – see also the answer given at the committal at Depositions 114: ‘he's hurting you, where is he?’
The offending
38On Sunday, 9 February 2020, Ms Anderson was at her home with Mr Bridges. You approached or arrived with a friend Mr Ken Altoon.[12] He waited in the car while you approached the front door. I was told that you attended to check on her.
[12]A pseudonym.
39You knocked on the front door, calling out for Ms Anderson to let you in. Ms Anderson pretended not to be home. You then went to her bedroom window and knocked. She opened the blind of that window and saw you. You said that your friend had got her fish and chips for dinner. While this was happening, Mr Bridges was in another bedroom.
40You asked Ms Anderson who else was in the house. You were angry and Ms Anderson was frightened. You then opened the window from the outside of the house, removing part of the window, and entered the property.
41When you did this, as Ms Anderson states, (a) obviously you did not have permission to enter the property; and you well knew you did not and (b), you had an intention to assault a person inside the property — an inference irresistible given your conduct before entry and the assault you engaged in once you arrived inside.
Charge 1 – Aggravated Burglary
42You approached Ms Anderson and took hold of her. You demanded to know who else was in the house.
43You went to the bedroom where Mr Bridges was and attempted to open the bedroom door. Mr Bridges was behind the door, attempting to keep you from entering. You pushed the door open and entered the bedroom.
44Immediately upon entering, you began assaulting him and screaming. You struck him with a metal pole a number of times to the head, legs and arms. You picked up a pedestal fan and struck him with it a number of times. As a result of the assault, he sustained bruising and pain to his arms, legs and upper body, including a circular pattern impressed on his back caused by being struck by the fan (Charge 2 – intentionally causing injury).
Charge 2 - intentionally causing injury
45During the assault, you were screaming and making threats while Mr Bridges was simply saying 'Please stop'.
46While this was happening, Ms Anderson ran out of the front of the house to where Mr Altoon was sitting in his car. She asked him for help. He remained in the car. Thankfully, two neighbours heard the assault, and they each called the police.
47Outside the front of the house, you told Ms Anderson to come with you. She was afraid but agreed to leave with you. You all left in Mr Altoon’s car. Ms Anderson remained with you and Mr Altoon for about an hour and a half before she was driven back to her home later in the evening by Mr Altoon’s daughter. A family violence intervention order (FVIO) had to be ultimately taken out to protect Mr Bridges.
Arrest and interview
48Nearly a month after this offending, on 14 March 2020, you were arrested by police and transported to Moonee Ponds for interview.
49You made admissions to attending the address but stated that you were let into the house voluntarily by Ms Anderson.
50You admitted to striking the victim with the pedestal fan and asked if you intended to cause him injury. You said, 'Yeah, well, yeah.'
51You made admissions to damaging some sunglasses but denied stealing anything.
Case history
52The case history of that matter was protracted and difficult. Some of it was due to your very poor mental health and the possibility you might have been actually unfit to be tried. Some of the delay related to the time it took to locate and charge you. Ultimately the matter proceeded as a plea of guilty in August 2022.
Observations about the offending
53The offending I just summarised rightly answers the description family violence. You entered your former partner's home against her will and assaulted her present partner either by way of revenge for the way you perceived he treated her, or out of anger or both.
54In doing so, you violated her home where she was entitled to feel safe. You unjustifiably assaulted a man who had done nothing to you at all, all the while being armed and being implored to stop. You then gave Ms Anderson precious little opportunity but to join you for fear of what might happen to her.
55When considering the gravity of that incident offence I take into account:
(a) Aggravated burglary is a serious matter which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years.
(b) The offending was committed against Ms Anderson and Mr Bridges who were entitled to feel safe in the former's home. Mr Bridges was sleeping at the time.
(c) The offending involved the use of a weapon, albeit one that was improvised and located at the premises.
(d) The offending occurred in the context and background of family violence generally.
(e) There appeared to be little to no premeditation or planning.
56The impact of your crime was serious. Ms Anderson was rightly concerned for her own safety but also that of Mr Bridges. She remained hypervigilant and frightened of you.[13]
[13]Exhibit C (on original plea CR-21-00754): Victim Impact Statement dated 27 May 2022.
MATTERS OF SENTENCING PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE
General matters
57I took into account your plea back in 2022 and gave full effect to the principles as stated by our Court of Appeal in Worboyes v The Queen,[14] to ensure the benefit you receive by your plea was perceptible and answers the description, 'a pronounced amelioration of sentence'.
[14][2021] VSCA 169 (‘Worboyes’).
58It was conceded rightly by your Counsel then that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment all had significance in the formulation of sentence. These principles are relevant in that the sentence must convey to others that violence of this kind will not be tolerated by our community. That is especially so when dealing with matters involving family violence.[15]
[15]Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97 at [57].
59You must be justly punished for the criminal conduct in which you engaged. In all the circumstances, that punishment needs to be substantial. A large measure of that punishment though, had already occurred when I first sentenced you and I hoped at the time I imposed the combination sentence you could be punished and reformed whilst in the community.
60You served your period of remand during the COVID-19 pandemic which I took into account in your favour, given the genuinely aversive difficult conditions accompanying same.
61By way of specific deterrence, your recent and relevant history meant that specific deterrence played a significant role in the sentence I imposed. Your prior convictions and long-standing drug addiction counted against you, especially given you offended this way so soon after completing parole (that was itself imposed for a CCO breach) which was concerning.
62The community can only be protected sometimes from an individual by that person's confinement in custody. In other circumstances, the community is best protected through the reform and re-integration of offenders back into their midst. When sentencing you for the 2020 offending I was of the view that a mix of both was required, but I approached this aspect of the sentence with real caution.
63I concluded then that your prospects for reform were guarded. I note that I was encouraged by your efforts to seek out treatment and the courses that you did in custody in a particularly difficult environment were impressive efforts to improve your lot. I was encouraged by your desire and willingness to undertake an order that in many ways would be a longer period of supervision than that which might otherwise be imposed under the auspices of parole. Again, these matters that gave me comfort and a degree of reassurance in imposing a combination sentence are absent now.
Penalty
64There was little dispute between the parties then about the applicable sentencing purposes for offending of this kind, although there was a difference as to what they said about the appropriate penalty itself. Your Counsel submitted a relative immediate release (with date certainty for release so that you could plan your transition into the community better), followed by a CCO was both open and appropriate.
65Counsel on behalf of the Director submitted that nothing less than a head sentence and a non-parole period was warranted.
66I concluded ultimately that you were approaching a time where you had served the majority of the custodial portion of any sentence I would impose before being eligible for release, but the question remained 'under what circumstances should I release you?' I made it clear that you had not served enough time in custody before your release, and that you had some time to go.
67To that end, I had you assessed for a CCO and that was accompanied by a MHARS report. You were seen as a high risk of further offending and the CCO assessor,[16] fairly bluntly assessed you as unsuitable for a CCO. She said that your:
history [of] non-compliance and further offending whilst on five previous community-based dispositions demonstrates that these orders are not a deterrent, are unable to mitigate the risk of recidivism, nor do they assist with his rehabilitation as he consistently fails to engage nor completes treatment to a satisfactory level. It is evident that there have been little changes to Mr Glinski's personal circumstances or protective factors that would support him in the successful completion of a CCO.
[She went on] Without clear evidence of previous compliance or a tangible change in circumstance this service would not be able to mitigate any risk to the community and a further community-based disposition would serve limited purpose. Specifically, despite Mr Glinski being assessed as a high risk of re-offending, which would indicate a higher level of service and supports being provided, he has a history of struggling to engage with the requirements of a community-based disposition at their most basic level. That is, whether it be a courtbased requirement, engagement with treating clinicians, or participating in the process for housing support.[17]
[16]Exhibit 6 (on original plea): CCO Assessment Report dated 8 August 2022
[17]Ibid 3.
68That is what was said of you at the time I sentenced you first. While I did understand the Office of Corrections' (OOC) misgivings in August 2022 I was of the view that there was in fact a rather profound change in your circumstances, namely the onset of an unquestionably serious mental illness for which you were well-treated in custody combined with the value of the courses already undertaken by you.
69Further, despite some equivocation expressed by the assessor about your living arrangements post-release, it was always my understanding that you proposed to follow through on those important, self-made enquiries to attend the Eastern Bridge program, which is a reputable stable form of residential rehabilitation that was open to you upon a further suitable assessment when you were released.
70I fashioned my sentence knowing that your release was close enough in time to give you certainty and encouragement to continue to reform, but far enough away to permit meaningful planning to be engaged in prior to your release.
71I did not see the 'transitional difficulties' the author referred to as being such an impediment to your management on an order given the OOC were to have date certainty of your release and there was an established pathway created for them or for ACSO to Eastern Bridge. I indicated at the time I sentenced you in 2022 I would be surprised and disappointed if that opportunity was not given to you.
72Finally, the MHARS report[18] stated that you had developed a degree of insight into your poor mental health and the consequent need for treatment (namely Olanzapine), your overall capacity to abstain from drugs was a secondary consequence to your compliance with your medication.
[18]Exhibit 7 (on original plea CR-21-00754): MHARS Report dated 15 August 2022.
73You appear to be well aware of the benefits of this medication and provided a stable, sober basis from which you might have been supervised in the community, and undertake counselling on a CCO.
74The MHARS assessor recommended that you continue to see a GP in Greenvale for prescription for opiate substitutes. That same GP reviews your medication and the efficacy of same and a mental health plan be initiated, which were all sensible suggestions. My expectations were that you would not need to undertake all those matters on your own, but could do so and ought to do so with the assistance and the guidance of the OOC.
75Accordingly, I was minded to release you on a CCO for a full two years after you had served 20 month's imprisonment. At the time I sentenced you (on 26 August 2022) you had served 529 days (or close to 18 months). Such an order was tailored specifically to your needs and specifically at your Counsel's urging. It was consented to by you. You were told the consequences for you upon a breach.
76Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty to those charges, I would have sentenced you then to a period of four years and six months' with a non-parole period of three years and two months.
77As I said, you will now need to be re-sentenced on those original charges given the breach of the CCO.
BREACH OF CCO[19]
[19]Admitted as part of the breach reports – See Exhibits D and E.
78You were released from custody on 23 September 2022.
79Within a week you had breached the order by stealing a six-pack of alcoholic beverages valued at over $30.[20]
[20]Informant White.
80The offending was low-level and opportunistic, and that is reflected in the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court on 11 April 2023 where you were fined $500 with conviction.
81You then failed to be supervised on 19 October, 26 October, 11 November, 23 November and finally failed to attended for judicial monitoring before me on 12 December.
82By 24 December you had re-offended in the most serious of ways and I will come to that in a moment.
83You admit the breach in the manner alleged against you in the breach report, namely you breached the CCO by non-compliance and by further offending. Your Counsel sought to contextualise this breach (and by necessity the offending that occurred during the currency of the Order) in the following way.
Context to failing to comply with CCO conditions
84Your homelessness and lack of practical supports to address your drug use contributed significantly to your noncompliance.
85It seems the plans you had to enter a specific drug residential facility were not thoroughly investigated by you and you failed at the first hurdle by not being able to demonstrate a period of sobriety to them even though you had just been released from custody.
86You attended induction and initial appointments while you were waitlisted for appropriate services. Almost from the time that you were released you experienced itinerancy and homelessness. This was far from the optimistic view I was presented with as to what would occur upon your release.
87Your priority upon release was housing. You secured a rental property however, quickly faced eviction. You sought assistance from your CCO worker for housing. You were directed to rooming houses with other drug users, which led to a relapse and a return to criminal behaviour. You were provided with workers who could assist you, but I am not convinced you sought out the assistance you could have from them.
88You descended quickly into illicit drug use. You were waitlisted for vital services. You took yourself off the medication I was told that you well understood you needed to take. On this plea further criticism for your own failures were levelled at the OOC for not having services available for you instantly upon release. I know that you understood that things were rapidly spiralling out of control for you — as there were communication with the Court via Corrections that you were contemplating bringing your own application to cancel the order.
Compliance
89As I said, it is accepted you breached the CCO by non-compliance and reoffending.
90It was submitted rather optimistically that there was limited compliance with the CCO, and the court in determining what new sentence to impose in light of the contravention is required to take into account the extent to which you complied with the conditions of the CCO pursuant to s 82AS(2) Sentencing Act 1991.
91Further to that, your Counsel submitted that although you had five unexplained absences from supervision appointments and disengaged, it is important to acknowledge that you did attend the first session after being released. In fact, the breach package documents this initial session where you demonstrated insight into high-risk situations, highlighting a willingness to address challenges.
92You participated in assessments, and you were referred to several different programs. But because you were placed on waitlists, you were unable to gain any actual therapeutic benefit to these programs before being remanded in the infancy of the order.
93Finally, community work was deferred due to your homelessness and responsivity issues.
94The view of the OOC naturally is that you are not suitable for another CCO and that you have to be resentenced on the original charges. That view is one supported by the Crown. It is not argued against by your Counsel.
Penalty for the offence of breach CCO
95Under the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (the Act) I can impose a penalty on you for the offence itself of breaching a CCO.[21] This ability to impose a penalty for the breach itself is important in deterring others from breaching orders of this kind.[22]
[21]Sentencing Act 1991 s 83AD - maximum three months imprisonment.
[22]See Exhibit D (on breach and re-sentencing): Prosecution Submissions on Contravention dated 23 May 2023.
96The fact that the subsequent offending occurs during the currency of the CCO only accentuates your criminality in that regard. It is necessary in my view to impose an identifiable punishment for breaching the CCO, albeit I have taken the view that the sentence for that breach can be served concurrently.[23]
[23]As have treated it as such an aggravating feature of the further offending and am conscious not to doubly punish you.
Resentencing
97Once a breach is found proven, I might vary, confirm, cancel the order and re‑sentence you for the original offending or cancel the order and take no further action.[24] Here, as I said, I am forced to cancel the order and re-sentence you for the original offending.
[24]Sentencing Act 1991 s 83AS.
98In dealing with you under this provision, I am of course required to consider the extent to which you complied with the original order.[25] It stands to reason that part of that assessment involves consideration of the nature and timing of the breach.
[25]Ibid s 83AS(2); Nolch v The Queen [2020] VSCA 195.
99You attended no programmes, Mr Glinski. You performed no community work. In my view there was no compliance of any kind with the order that you undertook to me to perform. You further offended first in a minor way, and then a grave way.
100On the exercise of resentencing, the submissions with respect to the original offending in the plea outline were relied on. The only disposition left to me for your offending is to impose a term of imprisonment.
101I have had regard to the original reasons for sentence and your personal history for instance, as they obviously still have real relevance to the sentence I impose. I am extremely conscious of the constellation of issues that you have, and that have already been dealt with in my original reasons.
102Now, though, bearing in mind your breach of the CCO different emphasis needs to be placed on relevant matters of principle.
103In light of the breach protection of the community assumes a greater role which will be reflected in my sentence. This is especially so when the allegation is that you have re-offended.
104I have increased the weight to be given to specific deterrence in an effort to deter you from re-offending.
105As a corollary of the above, I consider your prospects are even less optimistic than they were when I first sentenced you.
106Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I note that 600 days are declared as pre‑sentence detention as per the preferred approach in Luu v The Queen.[26]
[26][2018] VSCA 92 at [20]-[24].
THE 2022 OFENDING
Background – Subsequent offending
107It is in the context of the foregoing combination sentence, itinerancy, drug use and breach of CCO that the following offending occurs.
108You were living in Normanby Road in Kew and as I said, you were the subject of a CCO imposed only on 26 August 2022, which commenced upon your release from prison a little less than a month later on 23 September 2022.
109The victim in this matter, Cecilia Walters, was 41 years of age at the time of the offending. You did not know her. She lived in Hampton, where the offending occurred.
110She had two young children who were sleeping upstairs at the time of your offending who thankfully did not witness what occurred.
Offending[27]
[27]Taken from Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 23 May 2023.
111On Christmas Eve you attended the 'Hampton Flats', attempting to purchase drugs from an unknown associate.
112Just after midnight, you attended the victim's home, which is a short distance from where you were attempting to buy drugs. You scaled the victim's large fence around her property, and you entered her front yard. You unsuccessfully attempted to jemmy open the lock of the front glass sliding door.
113You then scaled the southern side fence of the victim's property, into the rear courtyard of the premises and there you attempted to jemmy open the garage door, where the victim's vehicle was visible from the window. (Charge 1: Attempted Aggravated Burglary – maximum penalty 20 years).
114At the time, the victim was asleep upstairs with her two young children, when she woke up to a bang like sound and rustling. Naturally she went down to investigate.
115She turned on the courtyard lights and opened the blinds to the back glass sliding door, where she observed you Mr Glinski standing in the southside courtyard. You were holding some kind of plastic implement. Having been obviously made aware that you were seen in some way, you waved that item at her and tapped it on the glass door, shouting: 'I'm coming for you'. Entirely predictably, given the circumstances, the victim was placed in extreme fear. (Charge 2: Common Law Assault – maximum penalty 5 years).
116Undeterred, you then used the plastic item to still attempt to open and jemmy the door. (Charge 1: Attempted Aggravated Burglary).
117At this point, your victim ran upstairs and turned on all the lights and called Triple 0 in a panicked state. She observed you jump over the back fence and run along the road.
Investigation and arrest
118At Around 12:25 am, Senior Sergeant Harwood and Senior Constable Larkins responded to the reported offence. They conducted a patrol at the local intersection in an unmarked Police vehicle. The Officers observed you on the opposite side of the road. They saw you take off your black T-shirt, turn it inside out and then place it back on. You appeared to be agitated and sweating heavily from running.
119You immediately became extremely aggressive towards Police in the vehicle and ran at them with speed, in a fighting stance, shouting: 'come on cunts'. You were not aware that this was a Police vehicle and presumably you were displaying extreme aggression towards what you believed were simply ordinary members of the public. This was within minutes of terrifying a woman who had caught you in her backyard where you had no right to be.
120Harwood and Larkins (dressed in their Police uniforms) exited their vehicle and told you to stop, as you continued to be agitated and aggressive.
121Harwood then took hold of you and pushed you back off the road, where you began to resist heavily. Larkins then also took hold of you, and you continued to resist. You were eventually taken to the ground and overpowered by Police. (Charge 3: Resisting an Emergency Worker on Duty – maximum penalty 5 years).
122Further Police units had to attend to assist to control you. Edwards asked for your name, as he reasonably suspected that you had committed the offence of attempted aggravated burglary. You said your name was Brett Glinski born on 20 June 1980. Police observed a photo of that person on their device and did not believe that that person was you. (Related Summary Offence: State False Name When Requested – maximum penalty of 5 penalty units).
123Local Crime Scene Services attended the victim's address that night and forensically examined the scene, where several fingerprints were lifted from the front and rear glass sliding doors, jemmy marks on the lock and minor damage to the fence.
124Your latent fingerprints were located on the front sliding door and the south side sliding door handle.
Interview
125A short time later, you were arrested and given your caution and rights. You were transported to Moorabbin police station for interview.
126Whilst at the station, Police Officers Herzog and Wood, challenged you about your identity. You refuted this challenge and suggested that it was both LEAP and VicRoads were incorrect, not you. You stated your actual date of birth in your interview but still nonetheless claimed to be Brett Glinski.
127Police eventually identified you. Eventually you admitted to purporting to be your older brother and avoiding arrest, as you knew that you were wanted for other offending at the time, and you were also on a CCO. Checks on you confirmed there was an outstanding whereabouts on you for a shop theft by Senior Constable White.
128You made no admissions to the offending in the interview. Far from admissions, you falsely stated that at the time of the offending, you were travelling innocently in a silver van with a potential new employer, when intercepted by Police on Bluff Road in the south east suburbs.
129Needless to say, Police enquiries revealed that at no point was a silver van intercepted by Police prior to that timeframe.
130You were remanded in custody where you have remained.
Case history
131Your matter proceeded rather expeditiously through the criminal justice system. It was before me as a plea of guilty within six months of the commission date.
Victim impact
132Not that you appeared to give much thought to it at the time of your offending, but your actions would have terrible consequences for your victim. In a powerful victim impact statement,[28] your victim details how you changed her life for the worse. It was the first time she ever felt unsafe in her own home and that sense of unease persists. She was a single mother who felt that she could not protect her children from you. Her children now have behavioural issues. They wake up with nightmares. The ongoing stress of what you did is severe. It has had serious health consequences for her. She incurred costs she could ill-afford to repair damage you did and at further great expense, had to spend money to install security systems to fortify her home. She bought a dog so she could feel safe.
[28]Exhibit B: Victim Impact Statement of Cecilia Walters dated 11 May 2023.
133It is fair to say that this level of human damage you cause is well known to you Mr Glinski given your prior criminal history. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of your criminality. I am astonished that you were not content to simply try to force your way into someone's home to steal whatever you could, but you also decided to actively menace a single mother whilst holding an object in the most threatening way.
134I take into account the serious consequences for your victim and her children of your actions. I condemn and denounce your behaviour in the strongest terms.
Context for offending
135To traverse ground I have already covered when dealing with issues surrounding the breach of CCO, you claim that the offending occurred within the context of a drug relapse and homelessness on release from custody with little support from the Department of Corrections.[29] Even if I accept the Department was not resourced to fully assist you, you appear very reluctant in my view to take much personality responsibility for the choices you made.
[29]Exhibit D: Prosecution Submissions on Contravention dated 23 May 2023 at [6].
136Your counsel sought to characterise the offending as being misguided by you. Under the influence of drugs, you followed advice to attend a property to purchase more drugs. Disoriented and unable to locate your intended destination, you impulsively offended without thought. Your memory of the night is apparently hazy and you can only able waking up in a police cell.
137Drug affected or not, you selected a house to burgle, scaled a fence and set about quite purposively to break into it. You directly threatened the occupant of the house and then in full knowledge that there was a person in that house, continued about your task of attempting to gain entry after the assault was affected.
138You had the presence of mind to turn your clothing inside out to avoid detection once seen by those in the unmarked Police car. You had the presence of mind to immediately give a false name to avoid consequences for your own criminality. You told demonstrable lies by way of denials as to the offending and persisted for some time with the lie that you were in fact your brother.
139You appear to me to be in a large degree of control of your actions and your thoughts. Moreover, your drug affected state does you little credit. You have an extensive history of offending whilst substance affected or disinhibited by drugs. You well know your own capacity for criminality when using.
Offending considerations
140The Prosecution submits that these are inherently serious offences, with substantial maximum penalties, the highest being 20 years imprisonment, for the offence of attempted aggravated burglary.[30] Common assault carries a penalty that befits its severity too.
[30]Exhibit C: Prosecution Submissions on Plea dated 30 May 2023 at [6].
141The Prosecution submits that the offending falls to be assessed as a mid-range example of the offences, noting that it does involve an attempt to steal. Your Counsel acknowledges that this is a moderately serious example of the offence having regard to the factors enumerated in the DPP v Meyers.[31] In my view this is a concession properly made.
[31][2014] VSCA 314 at [47].
142The following features are relevant to an assessment of the nature and gravity of the offending:
(a) The offending was committed on a vulnerable victim, in her own home in the early hours of the morning, when her two young children were also in the premises fast asleep, where she and her children were entitled to feel safe;
(b) Although the offending was fairly short in duration, you were present at the victim's address for some time, initially scaling her large fence and entering her front yard and attempting to jemmy open the front glass door, before entering the victim's rear courtyard and then attempting to jemmy open the garage door and then finally, attempting to open the victim's back glass sliding door with a plastic implement, intended for that purpose. I ought to add to that the concern I have for your absolute determination to break in once you were well aware of the victim's presence in that house.
(c) The offending was committed when you were clearly intoxicated or drug affected;
(d) The attack upon the victim was unprovoked and opportunistic;
(e) The offending was not particularly sophisticated;
(f) The offending has had a profound effect not only on the victim herself, but also her two children, who have been suffering since the incident occurred. As a single mother, it has made it particularly difficult for this victim to navigate and manage. Your Counsel very sensibly further acknowledged that the entire incident would have been absolutely frightening for the victim at the time and it has had an impact on her and her family.
143That you were subject to a CCO at the time for similar offending, imposed in combination with a term of imprisonment, commenced only four months earlier, accentuates the gravity of the present matter.
144There was an outstanding 'whereabouts' for you because you had also further offended.
145Your Counsel submitted I have to note that:
(a) You never entered the premises and your intention was to steal, not assault;
(b) You did not smash or break any windows or doors in an attempt to enter;
(c) No weapon was produced or used — that the item that you had in your possession was for the purposes of jemmying open a window;
(d) You were drug affected and the offending was spontaneous, opportunistic and unsophisticated;
(e) Finally, neither the victim or you were known to each other, and as such you were not someone with whom the victim should be particularly frightened.
146I have already dealt with the role drug use plays in this offending, but I wish to address the other points.
147Much of the forgoing had a subtext to it, the point to which was that this offending was not quite the same as the original 2020 offending, where the victim was Ms Anderson. Whilst this is not a confrontational aggravated burglary in the way that that term is understood by the law,[32] there is plenty of menace and confrontation through your words and gestures alone, even though there was no physical assault. I consider this to be a serious example of the offence of common law assault, when one looks at the whole of the circumstances.
[32]Hogarth v The Queen (2012) 37 VR 658.
148Further, it is your presence as a stranger in the victim's yard, threatening her while trying to break into her house, which in part makes the event so frightening. Of course, she was utterly terrified of you. That she did not know you is irrelevant.
149Finally, in relation to the charges of resisting arrest and stating a false name, it is conceded that this behaviour is unacceptable. You are described as resisting heavily. You had to be overpowered and brought to the ground. Other members attended in an effort to bring you under control.
150You were well cognisant of what you had done. You have a demonstrated recent history of disregarding the sanctity and the safety of other people's homes. Drug affected or not, you were certainly a man determined to struggle, lie and bluff your way out of the consequences for your own criminality.
MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE
Plea of guilty
151The plea of guilty here was entered at an extremely early stage. This is conceded by the Prosecution. No witnesses were required to give evidence or be cross‑examined and you will receive the benefit of an appropriate sentencing discount.
152The plea attracts and will attract an 'actual and palpable amelioration of sentence' due to the COVID-19 and its interruption to the ordinary business of the Court.[33] In short, by law I must reduce the sentence I impose on you by virtue of your plea alone.
[33]Worboyes [2021] VSCA 169 at [35].
153I was not taken to any evidence of your remorse for what you did other than what might be implicit in your plea of guilty, but there is a reference that I found in Mr Simmons report[34] to not only your anger directed towards yourself, but the impact your conduct had on others and so I do consider that to be some evidence of remorse and contrition.
[34]Exhibit 2: Report of Warren Simmons dated 7 May 2023.
Punishment, deterrence and denunciation
154It is conceded that general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment have applicability in this case. Appropriate weight will be given to those matters.
Prospects for reform and specific deterrence
155Your Counsel says that your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded, however, not extinguished.
156It is said that when you are in treatment for mental health and drug use, you can maintain periods where you do not offend. You concede that you relapsed into drug use and failed to take your medication but are keen to return to abstinence and mental health treatment.[35]
[35]See Exhibit 3: Letter from Mr Glinski.
157The high hopes you have upon your release (are evidenced in your letter to the Court) are admirable. You propose to:[36]
(a) Maintain your mental health by continuing to take medication prescribed;
(b) Live with a family friend in Kew who has agreed to provide you with accommodation;
(c) Be abstinent from drug use and engage with counselling;
(d) Secure employment which is something you have not had for years;
(e) Continue to rebuild relationships with your mother and sibling which is something that you have begun to do in custody.
[36]Ibid.
158Mr Glinski, I have no doubt that in the cold light of day you intend to follow through with each and every one of the matters that you refer to in the letter, but I struggle to see the above aspirational thinking manifest in any meaningful way in your life. One gets the sense you over-estimate your ability to live outside a prison environment and your reliance on and engagement with services is both sporadic and patchy.
159I find your prospects for reform to be worse than guarded. At your age, with your history, they are poor. They are even poorer now that you breached a CCO that was designed to facilitate your reform and you breached it so quickly, and so seriously and so comprehensively.
160You pleaded for such an opportunity and squandered it so quickly. Whatever prospects you have, will not be served by me imposing a straight sentence upon you, as was submitted on instructions on your behalf. You failed so spectacularly on the CCO even with assistance. It is the height of unreality that you would fare better without any of the supervision you say you need but did not get. You will need careful management and supervision by the Adult Parole Board (APB) in my view, if and when they release you on licence. I see that you indicate now that you will not even apply for parole.[37] One would hope that pessimism changes.
[37]Ibid.
161I also find that given your history and given the fact you breached this order (having served closed to two years in prison) a mere three months after being released as further proof that you are indeed very difficult to deter.
162Increasingly long sentences do nothing to stop you. For that reason, it is hard to conclude anything other than the sentences need to be weighted in such a way to give stronger emphasis on this sentencing objective.
Rolled up charges
163I consider the nature of Charge 3 as being rolled up — that is identifiable couple of charges bundled together in a single one. Rolled-up charges require your agreement and are only for the purpose of a guilty plea. They simplify my task and work to your benefit by allowing more than one instance of similar offending to be dealt with as a single charge. That is obviously the case here, and it confirms ultimately the cooperative approach you have taken in resolving this second matter.
164When sentencing on a rolled-up charge, I consider all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including if the offending was carried out over an extended period, whether multiple people were victimised, and the totality of harm described in the charge.
165In this case, I am sentencing you for your serious and determined efforts to thwart those who were Police officers (and you knew them to be so) from apprehending you. The totality of this conduct is not as serious as other aspects of your offending, and my sentence will reflect that.
Totality
166The totality principle is pertinent in this case, given the number of offences and the period of offending. The totality principle requires a Court sentencing an offender for multiple offences to ensure that the overall sentence imposed is a 'just and appropriate' measure of the total criminality involved and it is 'not excessive'.[38]
[38]Berry v The Queen [2019] VSCA 291, [22], [32].
167Further, and relatedly, given the overlap as between offending conduct, care must be taken to avoid double punishment in the overall sentence imposed.[39]
[39]Lecornu v The Queen (2012) 36 VR 382, 386 [12].
168There must be an appropriate relativity between the totality of all criminality and the totality of the effective length of sentence. This is true when I consider the interaction between charges on the indictment and the interaction between charges on each indictment.
169On each indictment I have determined an appropriate length for each charge, taking the applicable sentencing considerations into account and designated the highest term as the base, and then I have determined the extent to which there should be any cumulation regarding each count and finally stood back and considered in light of totality what an appropriate sentence ought to be. I then engaged in a similar exercise when considering orders for cumulation as to the whole on both indictments.
Parole
170I will obviously fix a period of parole for you. You obviously require supervision, monitoring and assistance. In affixing an appropriate sentence for you and allowing for a parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony; that is, the requirement not to impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which sentence is imposed.
171The purpose for parole is to provide for mitigation of punishment in favour of reform through conditional release when appropriate. A non-parole period is the minimum time I determine justice requires you serve, having regard to all of the circumstances. Accordingly, the non-parole period, that is, the period of imprisonment to be served before which you become eligible, will take into account the number of mitigatory matters in this case and to facilitate hopefully one day your reintegration into the community and ultimate reform.
172I repeat regrettably I conclude that your prospects are worse than guarded, they are poor, but whatever prospects you do enjoy will be enhanced by intensive supervision and the support of the APB when and if they decide to release you.
SENTENCE
173I sentence you as follows:
174Commencing with the breach of community corrections order, that offence is proven. You are convicted and sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment.
175That community corrections order as part of the combination sentence is cancelled and you will be resentenced on the original offending.
176The original offending of course is the A/B offending, Case No.CR-21-00754.
177Mr Sood, I will not say I tire of this, but your client wants to talk.
178MR SOOD: Your Honour, he is now indicating that he does not want to speak I note.
179HIS HONOUR: It is important. I will give you two minutes.
180MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
181(Short adjournment.)
182MR SOOD: Your Honour, thank you for that time. Mr Glinski just wanted to ask a question about the two months but I have advised to wait for the whole sentence, I will speak after this and he does extend his apologies, Your Honour, for interrupting.
183HIS HONOUR: Then to the A/B offending CR-21-00754.
184On Charge 1, aggravated burglary, convicted and sentenced to 2 years 10 months imprisonment.
185Charge 2, recklessly causing injury, convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
186On that block of offending, the 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment that should be, not 10 months. The base sentence on those sets of charges is 2 years 6 months and I cumulate 6 months on Charge 2 onto the base.
187So in the resentencing exercise it is my intention to convict and sentence Mr Glinski to 3 years or 36 months' imprisonment.
Turning now to the fresh offending – CR-23-00608.
188Charge 1, attempted aggravated burglary, convicted and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.
189Charge 2, common assault, convicted and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.
190Charge 3, assault emergency worker on duty, 5 months' imprisonment.
191Related summary offence, state false name, convicted and fined $400.
192The base sentence that I impose on the subsequent breaching offences is obviously the 3 years imposed on Charge 1. I cumulate 9 months on Charge 1 and 1 months on Charge 3 on the base and on each other.
193The total effective sentence imposed on the breaching offence is therefore 3 years 10 months imprisonment, that is 46 months' imprisonment.
194I direct that 14 months of the 3 year sentence be served cumulatively on the 3 year 10 month sentence imposed for the fresh offending. This brings about a total effective sentence of 60 months or 5 years.
195I will set a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months, that is to say 42 months, which allows for the possibility of 18 months of parole.
196Can you please take Mr Glinksi off mute, thanks.
197OFFENDER: Thank you, Your Honour.
198HIS HONOUR: Mr Glinski.
199OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
200HIS HONOUR: I will run through this process of sentencing you. I will explain it to your barrister.
201OFFENDER: Thank you very much.
202HIS HONOUR: Your barrister will then explain it to you.
203OFFENDER: Thanks very much, thank you.
204HIS HONOUR: I find the hand signals, the waving, the intervention unhelpful, as does your barrister.
205OFFENDER: Absolutely. I apologise, Your Honour.
206HIS HONOUR: All right. Do you mind if I proceed to keep sentencing you?
207OFFENDER: Not a problem, go ahead and I apologise again.
208HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Thanks Ms Bell, can you place Mr Glinski back on mute.
209This brings about a total effective sentence of 60 months' imprisonment, or 5 years.
210I set a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months, that is to say 42 months.[40]
[40]Allowing for a maximum period of 18 months parole, in the event the APB seems your release under licence to be warranted.
211It does permit, should the Adult Parole Board allow it, for 18 months of parole if and when Mr Glinski is ever eligible for it.
212I declare that Mr Glinski has already served 778 days[41] or something approximating 24 months in satisfaction of the sentence that I have just imposed and specifically to avoid any risk of doubt, I declare that that is constituted by 600 days originally being served on CR-21-00754 and 178 days served on CR‑23‑00608.
[41]Or approximately two years.
213I have already declared the s 6AAA statement with respect to the first offending at the time I sentenced. I am obliged to though, make a similar direction with respect to the subsequent offending. But for the plea of guilty on CR-23-00608 I would have sentenced Mr Glinski to a period of not less than 5 years 6 months and set a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months on that set of charges alone.
214Finally, to return to Charge 1, the breach of CCO, even though I have sentenced Mr Glinski to 2 months, given I have noted it earlier I have treated the fact that the further offending occurred during the course or currency of the CCO, which accentuated the further offending. The 2 month sentence is to be served concurrently with all other sentences but it is still important that a discrete penalty be imposed and noted for that offending.
215Mr Sood, that is a complex sentencing exercise to express.
216MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
217HIS HONOUR: Ms Paganis, have I expressed it clearly enough?
218MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour. I understand the sentence.
219HIS HONOUR: Ms Paganis?
220MS PAGANIS: Likewise, Your Honour.
221HIS HONOUR: Thank you for your considerable help. I will leave Mr Glinski on the line to talk to you - - -
222MR SOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
223HIS HONOUR: - - - because he will require some assistance being talked through this exercise. I know I promised that I would probably have this ready for you in draft form by tonight. It might have to wait till tomorrow while I anonymise a few matters. If I do send you a draft copy tomorrow it will not be for further distribution. It will be for your records and understanding for the purposes of discussing the matter with your relevant instructors.
224MR SOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
225HIS HONOUR: But otherwise you will have something that looks pretty close to revised by tomorrow. Thank you considerably both of you. Unless there are any other orders I will adjourn the Court.
226MS PAGANIS: As Your Honour pleases, thank you.
227MR SOOD: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
12
0